Attendance 2015

[Chisoxfn]

It is funny that Sox fans will point to only the last 10 seasons to talk about how bad they have had it, but are willing to go back to the 1990's to talk about how good the Bulls have it.

5 postseason appearances and 1 world series ring in 25 years. 20% of the time they made the playoffs. Bulls made playoffs 72% of the time and won 24% of the championships during that era. I think someone else talked about how putrid the Sox run has been over past 40 years even. Its been downright pathetic in terms of making the playoffs and any sort of sustained success. Sox had two / three shots at a run. 93 / 94 and then strike blew it up. Then again in 2000 and we never capped, but made it back in 05 and looked like we could put something together but again, never capitalized.

[southsider2k5]

What are you talking about dude? You're the one who brought up the Bulls.

 

It is the double standard being used in this thread. One note talks about only the most recent history for the Sox, but then is going back to before a good portion of the Bulls fan base can ever remember to explain them. It is silly.

[caulfield12]

I really don't care about any factor other then performance. Yes, cubs have benefited for whatever reason, but most teams are going to struggle with performance when they haven't had a lot of sustained success and post-season appearances. That is just the reality and more recently we have had some pretty awful teams to watch and as I've alluded to this team this year is probably the worst of the bunch to watch play (even more so then last years team that was horrifically frustrating to watch). When the product on the field stinks and the cost to go to games is their, what incentive does a person have to go pay. You don't get some huge discount on tickets when product sucks. Not much incentive to walk up and in 81 game season and with stadium capacity ~40K, that is a lot of potential seats to fill each and every night. Add in worse defense on the planet, cost, and poor fundamentals and I don't see why you'd watch.

 

Do you pay 10 bucks to see a great movie, sure, lots of people do. Do you pay 10 bucks to see Gigli, hell no (or at least I hope not...that would be a bannable offense). Yes, the 2015 White Sox are the theatric version of Gigle.

 

As a huge movie fan, I would definitely pay to see Gigli 3-4 times over ONE White Sox game, at least this season.

 

With that said, I'm making the quite LIKELY idiotic decision to go watch what might be Samardzija's last start with the White Sox tmrw afternoon in a game which will be lucky to attract 12,000 fans with beautiful weather forecast...including a total drive of 6-7 hours (back and forth to the Quad Cities).

[shysocks]

It is the double standard being used in this thread. One note talks about only the most recent history for the Sox, but then is going back to before a good portion of the Bulls fan base can ever remember to explain them. It is silly.

You brought up the early '00s Bulls, and the '90s dynasty had a clear and obvious impact on those teams' attendance. This is not rocket surgery.

[caulfield12]

It is the double standard being used in this thread. One note talks about only the most recent history for the Sox, but then is going back to before a good portion of the Bulls fan base can ever remember to explain them. It is silly.

 

See Cardinals since 1940.

 

When you have a winning tradition established (actually making the playoffs, not just finishing 2nd/3rd or over .500), you can go through a down decade (relatively speaking), and still emerge on the other side. For example, St. Louis from end of the 80's into the late 90's (eventual arrival of Pujols) was pretty much similar to what the White Sox did over the last decade.

 

Winning builds trust and good will. That has all but been erased in the minds of most Sox fans.

 

If the White Sox had won 4-6 World Championships in a 10-15 year period, this thread wouldn't exist.

Edited July 8, 2015 by caulfield12

[Chisoxfn]

10 teams since 1990 have had fewer playoff appearances then the Sox (I believe): Nats, Rockies, Marlins, Mariners, Orioles, Royals, Mets, Padres, Blue Jays and Rays. On that list, 3 are expansion teams and the list includes 3 world series winners (Blue Jays (1) & Marlins (2)). I'd also say that one thing almost all of those teams has in common is lousy attendance (w/outlier being Nats (new stadium / relocated franchise), Rockies (solid attendance, beautiful stadium, big city, Mets (new stadium pickup, but prior attendance had its own issues when team stunk at Shea) and Mariners (just a strong fan base in general...nice stadium and they benefited heavily from Ichiro and market (heavy Japanese / Asian population).

[Chisoxfn]

It is the double standard being used in this thread. One note talks about only the most recent history for the Sox, but then is going back to before a good portion of the Bulls fan base can ever remember to explain them. It is silly.

What double standard. We could go back to 1990. Our whole point was the Bulls franchise was changed for the better the day Jordan arrived. The Bulls become a show and a phenomena and backed it up with 6 titles and that gave them staying power through a down era and now they are back (not to the level previously) but have been a consistent playoff team and a perennial title contender (favorite, no, but Vegas has long had them amongst the front runners for the title). There is no comparing the Bulls & Sox from 1990 onward. It is a horrible argument.

 

If you want to go back to the pre-jordan era and when the Bulls largely sucked, sure, but fact is, product took a turn for the better and the Bulls became the face of the NBA internationally and did so far a long time (Jordan was a god before he ever won his 1st title so the stretch really was well sustained).

[caulfield12]

10 teams since 1990 have had fewer playoff appearances then the Sox (I believe): Nats, Rockies, Marlins, Mariners, Orioles, Royals, Mets, Padres, Blue Jays and Rays. On that list, 3 are expansion teams and the list includes 3 world series winners (Blue Jays (1) & Marlins (2)). I'd also say that one thing almost all of those teams has in common is lousy attendance (w/outlier being Nats (new stadium / relocated franchise), Rockies (solid attendance, beautiful stadium, big city, Mets (new stadium pickup, but prior attendance had its own issues when team stunk at Shea) and Mariners (just a strong fan base in general...nice stadium and they benefited heavily from Ichiro and market (heavy Japanese / Asian population).

 

1994 nearly destroyed the Expos, baseball in Montreal in that stadium was just never going to work....just like it (the STRIKE) did in the Midwest (along with the 2008/09 financial crisis). Revisit the theme of exceptions again, the Sammy and Big Mac Show in St. Louis and Chicago.

 

The Rockies, Mariners and Orioles all had very strong attendance with the opening of their new stadiums....but eventually that fell off with the lack of success on the field (and the Rockies had 2007 and 2009, more recent success).

 

The Mariners have a market all to themselves and still have been struggling with attendance over the last 5+ years, despite adding the likes of Cano and Nelson Cruz (to go with King Felix). Luckily, they have that new tv rights deal, but even that alone hasn't been enough because of the failures of young players like Smoak, Ackley, Zunino, Montero and whoever they've stuck at SS or CF (no Adam Jones).

 

 

The Twins, Royals, Reds, Indians and White Sox are the norm...the Brewers/Cubs/Cards/Tigers are the outliers that don't fit.

Edited July 8, 2015 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

What double standard. We could go back to 1990. Our whole point was the Bulls franchise was changed for the better the day Jordan arrived. The Bulls become a show and a phenomena and backed it up with 6 titles and that gave them staying power through a down era and now they are back (not to the level previously) but have been a consistent playoff team and a perennial title contender (favorite, no, but Vegas has long had them amongst the front runners for the title). There is no comparing the Bulls & Sox from 1990 onward. It is a horrible argument.

 

If you want to go back to the pre-jordan era and when the Bulls largely sucked, sure, but fact is, product took a turn for the better and the Bulls became the face of the NBA internationally and did so far a long time (Jordan was a god before he ever won his 1st title so the stretch really was well sustained).

 

It feels like the White Sox are reminiscent of the Bulls in the late 70's/early 80's and waiting for their own Michael Jordan (which, of course, in baseball is usually not one superstar but a winning collection of players).

 

Right now, it's the Quintin Daley and Jay Williams Curse...except it's the FREE AGENT/ALL IN Curse, because there certainly haven't been many injuries or drug problems with our players.

 

We just can't select and/or develop a player to save our lives, other than pitchers.

 

Ironic, of course, because the team on the other side of town that's getting 95% of the column inches has the opposite problem. Yet one has the feeling that Epstein and Hoyer won't panic and try to force something one year early, they're going to wait until July 31st and pick up a starting pitcher on the cheap....instead of taking advantage of a seller's market early in July like they've done the last 2-3 seasons.

[TheChrisSamsa]

Playoff appearances since 1990:

 

Bulls = 18

Bears = 7

 

Neither of the teams has any competition in the city in their respective sports, so your comparison doesn't really hold much weight.

 

Piggybacking on this, really more of a data dump than anything.. Comparing playoff appearances or attendance numbers to other sports isn't relevant. I can make this data say a lot of different things, depending on how I frame it:

 

In 2014, the Bears had a total attendance of 493,449; the Blackhawks had a total attendance of 892,529; the Bulls had a total attendance of 890,370; the Cubs had a total attendance of 2.65 million; and the White Sox had a total attendance of 1.65 million. The Sox are selling more tickets than all but one major sports franchise in Chicago. Selling more tickets allows The White Sox to leverage fixed costs more more than three other sports.

 

In 2014 the White Sox only sold 50.18% of their total capacity of tickets; the Cubs sold 79.65% of their total capacity of tickets; The Bears sold 100% of their total capacity of tickets; The Bulls sold 99.03% of their total capacity of tickets; and The Blackhawks sold 106% of their total capacity of tickets. The White Sox sold the lowest percentage of their available tickets. Being well below their capacity makes it challenging for the White Sox to leverage their variable costs in a way that is financially responsible while providing the in-game experience that they desire so as to generate repeat visits.

 

While we're at it, we can also make the case that it's more challenging to make the playoffs in Major League Baseball than in other sports:

 

53.33% of NBA teams make the playoffs in any given season

53.33% of NHL teams make the playoffs in any given season

37.5% of NFL teams make the playoffs in any given season

 

Prior to 1994, 14.2% of MLB teams made the playoffs each season. Between 1994 and 2012, 26.6% of MLB teams made the playoffs in each season. Currently, 33.3% of MLB teams make the postseason, but 2 of those teams for only one game, so still only 26.6% really make the playoff series.

 

The Bulls and Blackhawks are the only two that are above the theoretical average in playoff appearances, while the Cubs and White Sox are essentially 2 playoff appearances behind the theoretical average number of appearances.

 

Bulls = 18 (72%)

Blackhawks = 15 (60%)

Bears = 7 (28%)

White Sox = 4 (16%)

Cubs = 4 (16%)

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

Piggybacking on this, really more of a data dump than anything.. Comparing playoff appearances or attendance numbers to other sports isn't relevant. I can make this data say a lot of different things, depending on how I frame it:

 

In 2014, the Bears had a total attendance of 493,449; the Blackhawks had a total attendance of 892,529; the Bulls had a total attendance of 890,370; the Cubs had a total attendance of 2.65 million; and the White Sox had a total attendance of 1.65 million. The Sox are selling more tickets than all but one major sports franchise in Chicago. Selling more tickets allows The White Sox to leverage fixed costs more more than three other sports.

 

In 2014 the White Sox only sold 50.18% of their total capacity of tickets; the Cubs sold 79.65% of their total capacity of tickets; The Bears sold 100% of their total capacity of tickets; The Bulls sold 99.03% of their total capacity of tickets; and The Blackhawks sold 106% of their total capacity of tickets. The White Sox sold the lowest percentage of their available tickets. Being well below their capacity makes it challenging for the White Sox to leverage their variable costs in a way that is financially responsible while providing the in-game experience that they desire so as to generate repeat visits.

 

While we're at it, we can also make the case that it's more challenging to make the playoffs in Major League Baseball than in other sports:

 

53.33% of NBA teams make the playoffs in any given season

53.33% of NHL teams make the playoffs in any given season

37.5% of NFL teams make the playoffs in any given season

 

Prior to 1994, 14.2% of MLB teams made the playoffs each season. Between 1994 and 2012, 26.6% of MLB teams made the playoffs in each season. Currently, 33.3% of MLB teams make the postseason, but 2 of those teams for only one game, so still only 26.6% really make the playoff series.

 

The Bulls and Blackhawks are the only two that are above the theoretical average in playoff appearances, while the Cubs and White Sox are essentially 2 playoff appearances behind the theoretical average number of appearances.

 

Bulls = 18 (72%)

Blackhawks = 15 (60%)

Bears = 7 (28%)

White Sox = 4 (16%)

Cubs = 4 (16%)

 

I always chuckle when I see your account name because I read it as "Christ Likes Baseball." Unfortunately for us, not the White Sox so much...at least recently. Even with Jesus of Nazareth hitting 4th or 5th, we'd still be offensively-challenged and he wouldn't be driven in by the bottom of the order.

 

Then again, Jesus can walk on water...so, despite the presence of Vince Coleman. he could actually end up with at least an 80-85% success rate on steals one would imagine.

Edited July 8, 2015 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

The only reason I have ever cared about attendance is the possible impact it could have on payroll. If this was like the NBA or NFL, I wouldn't even pay attention to it.

This is, of course, why I bumped this thread. If walkup crowds in July are this bad...when season ticket sales hit and get the same trend, it's going to propagate through to another major revenue drop.

[bmags]

I'm going to tonight's game. Worth pointing out I don't want to go. We can say "oh you can't make weather an excuse", but all of these people not going are real people, and I have gone to 12 games this year, and only 2 have been nice. It really has been awful weather this year, and it's july 7th and I have to worry that I didn't bring a coat.

[caulfield12]

This is, of course, why I bumped this thread. If walkup crowds in July are this bad...when season ticket sales hit and get the same trend, it's going to propagate through to another major revenue drop.

 

10 bonus points for "propagate through to."

 

Balta for 2015 White Sox 2nd Half Manager

[LDF]

It feels like the White Sox are reminiscent of the Bulls in the late 70's/early 80's and waiting for their own Michael Jordan (which, of course, in baseball is usually not one superstar but a winning collection of players).

 

Right now, it's the Quintin Daley and Jay Williams Curse...except it's the FREE AGENT/ALL IN Curse, because there certainly haven't been many injuries or drug problems with our players.

 

We just can't select and/or develop a player to save our lives, other than pitchers.

 

Ironic, of course, because the team on the other side of town that's getting 95% of the column inches has the opposite problem. Yet one has the feeling that Epstein and Hoyer won't panic and try to force something one year early, they're going to wait until July 31st and pick up a starting pitcher on the cheap....instead of taking advantage of a seller's market early in July like they've done the last 2-3 seasons.

 

the sox did have those players...... it was the 90's

[WBWSF]

It seems like this subject of White Sox attendance brings out a big response. I've often wondered does anybody who works for the White Sox read any of these comments?

[southsider2k5]

It seems like this subject of White Sox attendance brings out a big response. I've often wondered does anybody who works for the White Sox read any of these comments?

 

Which is exactly why the media mentions it all of the time.

[Chisoxfn]

It seems like this subject of White Sox attendance brings out a big response. I've often wondered does anybody who works for the White Sox read any of these comments?

I can guarantee it. They are extremely aware of these sites. Does Kenny, probably not, but do people in the marketing department, etc, check in on what fans are saying on Soxtalk (and other sites) most certainly. Will they make changes because of what we said, not when it comes to roster decisions, but absolutely when it comes to product / ball park features, effectiveness of ad campaigns, etc.

 

Not just because 1 person said it, but it is direct feedback that is readily available from a target demographic. That said, they also care about getting the non hard core fans in, but when hard core fans struggle to want to go, how are you going to pull anyone else.

[Julius]

I can guarantee it. They are extremely aware of these sites. Does Kenny, probably not, but do people in the marketing department, etc, check in on what fans are saying on Soxtalk (and other sites) most certainly. Will they make changes because of what we said, not when it comes to roster decisions, but absolutely when it comes to product / ball park features, effectiveness of ad campaigns, etc.

 

Not just because 1 person said it, but it is direct feedback that is readily available from a target demographic. That said, they also care about getting the non hard core fans in, but when hard core fans struggle to want to go, how are you going to pull anyone else.

 

 

If the Marketing Department is reading this, then here is my Open Letter to Brooks Boyer….

 

"Brooks - at the end of the day, The Cell is in a terrible location relative to your fan base. Your challenge is to get people to show up on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday….and even Friday. Unfortunately, you couldn't give away enough tickets (heck, even enough t-shirts) to get people to suffer through Chicago traffic. My friends in Cary and Arlington Heights only go to games on Saturday and Sunday. Imagine the people that would show up if you had a ballpark in the burbs. The sox had that opportunity but JR failed to see the genius in moving to Addison.

 

Relocation won't happen because JR has a sweetheart deal with the State of Illinois. What's the solution? Remove JR and his cronies and get people who know how to build a sustainable winner."

Edited July 9, 2015 by Julius

[Thad Bosley]

If the Marketing Department is reading this, then here is my Open Letter to Brooks Boyer….

 

"Brooks - at the end of the day, The Cell is in a terrible location relative to your fan base. Your challenge is to get people to show up on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday….and even Friday. Unfortunately, you couldn't give away enough tickets (heck, even enough t-shirts) to get people to suffer through Chicago traffic. My friends in Cary and Arlington Heights only go to games on Saturday and Sunday. Imagine the people that would show up if you had a ballpark in the burbs. The sox had that opportunity but JR failed to see the genius in moving to Addison.

 

Relocation won't happen because JR has a sweetheart deal with the State of Illinois. What's the solution? Remove JR and his cronies and get people who know how to build a sustainable winner."

I am as big a critic of Jerry Reinsdorf as anyone on this site, primarily because of his failure during his 35 years as owner to deliver sustainable winning baseball, as evidenced through exciting postseason action. Only one season in 35 has met that threshold. Failure! He's also made a host of bungling decisions along the way that have had lasting, negative effects on the franchise. And oh, how I look forward to the day when this team gets a new owner! However, I'm in a generous mood after our nice walk-off win last night, so why don't I give the 'ol boy his just due and refute the bolded.

 

Reinsdorf did see the genius in moving the team to Addison. Addison was by far his first choice for location of the new ballpark. He even purchased the tract of land upon which the park would have been built (we're talking mid 80s here). The reason you and your friends from Cary and Arlington Heights are not traveling to Addison today to watch White Sox baseball is because the construction of a new ballpark in that town was put up for voter referendum - and it was defeated by 30 votes. Just 30 votes! If a mere 16 people in Addison had voted differently that one fateful day, the entire state of the franchise would look very different today. The Sox would have been playing in the suburbs for the past 25 years instead of at that crummy location in Bridgeport. I obviously can't say if the results since 1991 would have been better or worse, but they certainly would have been different.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Thad Bosley

[Iwritecode]

How is that any different in Oakland, Citi Field or Anaheim (who are bleeding thousands of fans this year despite a playoff appearance last year and the presence of Mike Trout, the best young player in the game, along with Harper)?

 

Where are these fans who show up season after season and support consistently losing teams, other than the Cubs (and they had big drop offs too over the last 2-3 seasons)?

 

Please don't try to argue the Giants in the seasons between their World Series appearances....or HUGE market teams with historical parks like the Red Sox, who've still enjoyed 3 World Series titles basically in the last decade.

 

Which team that has enjoyed LESS success on the field than the White Sox in the past decade (starting in 2006) has much better fan support/more loyal fans?

 

The Cubs had one more playoff appearance but a worse regular season winning percentage over that time frame.

 

It’s a shame the Sox are always compared to them because they are the biggest attendance anomaly in all of sports. There is no other fan base I know of that shows up more for the experience of being at/near the game than the actual play of the team.

 

For years they could have put a little league team on the field and it wouldn’t have made a difference because most of the people there didn’t know or care who was playing.

 

[OmarComing25]

I can't believe the Bulls were even compared to the Sox situation. They had a dynasty in the 90s, have been pretty good over the last decade, have no other Chicago NBA team in town to compete with, only have to fill up the stadium 41 games instead of 81, and have a much lower capacity to fill. Even the pathetic Sox attendance of recent years would be enough to sell out the United Center every night. It's not an even comparison in the slightest.

 

We also need to stop comparing our situation to the Cubs. According to the Cubs' marketing department, 37% percent of their fans are tourists from out-of-state. Wrigley Field is a huge tourist attraction, you take away that from the Cubs and they would have similar attendance woes when they're bad.

 

http://chicagoist.com/2011/07/25/cubs_numb..._percent_of.php

 

 

[Dick Allen]

I can't believe the Bulls were even compared to the Sox situation. They had a dynasty in the 90s, have been pretty good over the last decade, have no other Chicago NBA team in town to compete with, only have to fill up the stadium 41 games instead of 81, and have a much lower capacity to fill. Even the pathetic Sox attendance of recent years would be enough to sell out the United Center every night. It's not an even comparison in the slightest.

 

We also need to stop comparing our situation to the Cubs. According to the Cubs' marketing department, 37% percent of their fans are tourists from out-of-state. Wrigley Field is a huge tourist attraction, you take away that from the Cubs and they would have similar attendance woes when they're bad.

 

http://chicagoist.com/2011/07/25/cubs_numb..._percent_of.php

This is where you ignoring things. Caulfield likes to say a third of the Cubs attendance are tourists, but then say USCF is 75% Tigers fans or whoever they are playing. So the assumption that everyone at USCF is local is crazy. The other assumption you make is if 37% of the crowd at any particular game are tourists, if those tourists stayed home, those tickets would remain unsold. I don't think that is true for every one of them. Not even close. The Cubs are more popular than the Sox. It's even in this thread people would be more inclined to go to a Sox game if there was a Wrigleyville vibe to the neighborhood.

[OmarComing25]

This is where you ignoring things. Caulfield likes to say a third of the Cubs attendance are tourists, but then say USCF is 75% Tigers fans or whoever they are playing. So the assumption that everyone at USCF is local is crazy. The other assumption you make is if 37% of the crowd at any particular game are tourists, if those tourists stayed home, those tickets would remain unsold. I don't think that is true for every one of them. Not even close. The Cubs are more popular than the Sox. It's even in this thread people would be more inclined to go to a Sox game if there was a Wrigleyville vibe to the neighborhood.

I never said the Sox were 100% local, and you're right that a lot of those lost tourist tickets would go elsewhere. But it's still not a level playing field. Is it a coincidence that the Cubs really only started to outdraw the Sox after the Tribune started marketing the hell out of Wrigley? It's not the only reason the Cubs are more popular of course, but it's a huge reason.

 

I'm not trying to take away from the Cubs here. They've done a hell of a job building a brand over the past 30 years while the Sox have failed.

Edited July 9, 2015 by OmarComing25

[WBWSF]

One of the posters mentioned the stadium JR tried to get built in Addison. We're never going to find out because the stadium wasn't built there, but does anybody think they would of drawn more people in Addison? I've seen a number of White Sox surveys where they claim that 20% of White Sox attendance comes via public transportation. There's no public transportation anywhere near that Addison location. There's a Metra station in Wooddale, which isn't close to that stadium site. JR doesn't like to talk about it but when the White Sox were looking for a new stadium back in the 1980's the City of Chicago wanted to build a stadium for the White Sox in the South Loop at Roosevelt and Clark. JR turned down the offer and instead tried to get the stadium built in Addison. When Addison didn't work out the offer from the City was off the table and the White Sox got stuck at the present location. Everybody I have ever met always thought the White Sox would of been better off in the South Loop than their present location or Addison. In other words I think JR screwed up by not having the White Sox stadium built in the south Loop.